Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ISI.EDU!pvm
From: pvm@ISI.EDU (Paul Mockapetris)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Naive questions about subnets & domains
Message-ID: <8908222057.AA06211@venera.isi.edu>
Date: 22 Aug 89 20:57:06 GMT
References: <8908181610.AA28277@orbweb.spider.co.uk>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 18

Hierarchical names, such as those used in the DNS, X.500, and DNANS are
popular because you can distribute authority for name creation by
assigning a node to an organization, and then let it "grow" nodes
underneath.  Because of this use, the hierarchy must always follow the
delegation of control.

We might also like to have out hierarchies correspond to something else
as well.  For example, some like the organizational structure, others
want to have a top-level be network names, others feel EDU vs COM vs
ORG is right, etc.

Sooner or later, there are problems creating one hierarchy that follows
two different criteria.  The DNS doesn't show this problem much because
the organizational criteria and tree-delegation criteria are virtually
identical.  X.400 ORname allocation schemes are debated so much because
the designers are trying to serve multiple masters.

paul